Post navigation

Learning Content – From Targeting to Architecture to Development/Acquisition to Continuous Improvement

It’s a Cycle

It’s 6 Points on the L&D Compass.

In my view. Your view may need to vary.

The 6 Points on my L&D Compass:

Targeting

Architecture

Paths/Planning Guides

Development/ Acquisition

Sharing

Continuous Improvement

Let’s cover each compass point quickly…

1. Targeting

This is most critical – to eventual ROI – Level 4 Evaluation data – and Level 5 if you are into that model. Which requires good Level 3 and Level 2.

All Learning starts as Informal. If that is sufficient – then let it be.

If not, formalize it. But targeted for the probably returns in terms of revenue achieved and/or risks avoided.

I recommend a more Formal than not – Governance & Advisory System – such as covered in my 2001 book: T&D Systems View – and at the top of the clock in this model.

And … if the situation requires it – a more formal Governance Structure, Processes and set of Practices … putting the customers and other stakeholders in the driver’s seat … so to speak.

Here is an example of a structure below. Your needs may differ.

And…

There’s more to L&D than ADDIE (or SAM, or SAT, etc.).

2. Architecture

Either your efforts are all one -offs … resulting in a set of overlapped (and gapped) content … and that THAT is acceptable … after becoming known.

Or you are attempting to do better and treat the valuable content that you create as something other than a throw away – which is needed at times – but not all of the time.

Architecture is dealing with an agreed upon taxonomy for all Enterprise Content.

Here in the next graphic is one of 4 sets of content in the PACT methodologies.

ReUse – for many purposes.

Shared culture, shared language, shared understanding … etc.

At a reduced cost.

3. Paths/Planning Guides

Providing guidance to Learners makes their Learning more efficient – and probably more effective as well.

It’s beyond performance-based On-Boarding – to include On-Going development – of Performance Competence.

And … Not Learning for the sake of Learning. Learning for the sake of the Enterprise. To enable the Performance Competence Requirements of critical Target Audiences.

CAD efforts produce Paths and Planning Guides, reconcile existing content for ReUse potential, and identify all of the content gaps for prioritization and resources by the management of the Learners – to meet their business needs.

Gaps left – are left to Informal Learning.

By Design. Not By Chance.

Sharing can happen with the front-end of the Path, an Event, or a Lesson (Module) within an Event, or at the Instructional Activity level, or lower at the text and image levels.

Or you can re-build, re-buy and otherwise be wasteful in your use of Enterprise resources to create Enterprise content.

4. Development/Acquisition

Build or Buy. And then use “as is” or “after modification” – and always inventory the derivative content.

This is my version of ADDIE – used in dozens and dozens of consulting engagements…

Not all projects require active involvement of a Project Steering Team. But that’s THEIR decision.

5. Sharing

Sharing can happen in many ways – controlled or uncontrolled – formal and informal.

Sharing with PUSH Target Audiences – the critical target audiences – can happen with content shared as is – or after modification. Either built/bought for them as a Target Audience – or originally for another.

That modified content needs to be stored both in inventory – and on the shelf – so to speak. To be available to others – for modifications or use as is.

6. Continuous Improvement

Putting a users group in charge of maintenance – via a Governance & Advisory structure of some kind – is best IMO. They’ll keep it up to date if it is worthwhile … and they’ll let die what should be. Pruning will be required of out-of-date content. Other content should be maintained in some controlled manner. Or why bother with build/buy in the first place (not that that can be reasonable even from an ROI perspective).

But that’s a Stakeholder decision – not an ISD decision. And how formal your process needs to be – and what will be tolerated – will likely vary from other organizations.

Example structure for governance (and advisory) follows – again:

In the graphic above I would put “the call out for the need for CI” in the hands of the Advisory Councils – or whatever you might call them. And support them and their data/information needs in making those determinations.

And I’m thinking Level 2 and 3 Evaluation data here.

Is Your Content Organized or Disorganized?

How do your processes contribute to – or inhibit – that organization?

What Are the Returns for Addressing This?

The first focus is Effectiveness – in impacting Performance Competence of the Learners.

The second focus is on Efficiency of the processes in terms of cost and speed of getting Learners to become Performance Competent enough at various stage of anticipated capability growth.

What’s In Your Logic?

Here is one sub-set of the entire PACT Logic – which of course exists within an EPPI Logic.

PACT is a Sub-Set of EPPI

The goal is always Performance – improvement or sustainment – at any and all levels:

Individual

Process

Organization

Society

And Learning – is a subset of many other enablers.

Which may be more important to address than formalizing the Learning possibilities.

Just because you can – doesn’t mean you should.

PACT – an ISD methodology-set – is a subset of EPPI – an Improvement methodology-set.

The structure, concepts, models, tools, techniques of PACT and EPPI are detailed enough and flexible enough for adoption and adaptation.

By Design.

Go For More

Dozens of posts cover many of the above Points may be found elsewhere on this site.

Please use the search function to probe further on any task or topic in the PACT and EPPI methodology-sets.

Guy has served 80+ clients including over 45 F500 firms since November 1982.

Recipient of the ISPI - the International Society for Performance Improvement - Honorary Life Member Award - 2010 - for contributions to the Society and to the Technology for Performance Improvement (PI).

Founding member of ASQ’s Influential Voices Initiative - 2010. Served through 2015.

Guy W. Wallace collaborates with his Clients using predictable, visible, proven processes on time and on budget.

Client work won awards for AT&T, General Motors, HP and Siemens Building Technologies.

Guy's 40 years in the performance improvement/ training/ learning business have been focused in 2 key areas:

1- analysis of the organization and its business processes to derive the "Learning Requirements" from the "Performance Requirements" and...

2- design/architecting the configuration of instructional and informational content.

Guy conducts Performance Improvement projects, Curriculum Architecture Design projects, Instructional Design/Development projects, and he both formally and informally develops and coaches client staff in his ISD and Performance Improvement methods, processes, and in the use of his tools and techniques.

You Go Down The Learning Path to Go Up The Learning Curve – to go Up the Performance Competence Curve

Guy has been doing performance-based Training Paths and Planning Guides for clients since 1982. First published on Curriculum Architecture in Training Magazine in September 1984 and on the Analysis methods in NSPI's (now ISPI) PIJ in November 1984.

In PACT – Even the APPOs – Application Exercises are Architected

Performance Based Instruction – Focuses on Performance

Help your client determine their own internal Best Practices in order to share with others in the Enterprise as appropriate.